The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Hauerwasian critique of Natural Law ethics

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 03-09-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

A few disclaimers. I actually like St Thomas Aquinas. I appreciate many medieval insights. Secondly, I am not using this critique as a sub-argument for theonomy. Far from it. In fact, I would rather the T-word not even enter the discussion. Anyway, here is Stanley Hauerwas' critique:

Quote:

Emphasis on the distinctiveness of Christian ethics does not deny that there are points of contact between Christian ethics and other forms of social life. While such points frequently exist, they are not sufficient to provide a basis of a "universal ethic" grounded in human nature per se. Attempts to secure such an ethic inevitably result in a minimalistic ethic and often one which gives support to forms of cultural imperialism, which can then be taken to underwrite forms of coercion.

(Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, 60-61).

I actually disagree with the last two clauses because: 1) not all forms of cultural imperialism are bad; 2) this usually doesn't happen anyway.

Not many NL guys argue that a "universal ethic based on human nature" exist from the "basis* that there is commonality between multiply ethics. Aquinas didn't argue that way. It has to do with the function and prupose of man.

Not to be rude, but if man didn't have a rectum would sodomy be immoral?

Quote:

Jamie Smith goes on to say,

Quote:

Formally speaking, the norms of human social life, and therefore the norms for ethical action, are determined by the telos of a community; this telos is both revealed and unfolded in a particular story that sustains and orients this community. As such, the norms for communal life are story-relative and therfore distinct to that community. More specifically, for the CHristian community, the norms for social life and ethical action are specified by a distinct telos, communion with God and neighbor, which is itself specified only in the distinct Christian story embodied in God's revelation in Scripture.

(Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, 240).

I don't understand this critique. Is it one?

That wasn't really a critique. They were both excerpts from the same book. Smith was expounding a point. The critique was actually a footnote in the book and wasn't part of his main point--just an interesting footnote.

Quote:

God instantiated the human race. God instantiated how they are to function. How they would flourish best. God designed us in such a way that certain things are wrong in light of his design. Had he given us infallible truth detectors as part of our cognitive facuty, would 'bearing false witness' be a functional category anymore?

That's why lying isn't absolutely wrong. It's intended to promote human flourishing (as one intention among many). If that goal cannot be reached, that may affect whether the ethic holds in that instance. Case in point: hidding a woman from her frenzied husband who knocks on your door looking for her, "Where is my wife?", he asks. If you lie, was it immoral?

Also, it is used to benefit your *neighbor.* Those in need most are your neighbor. The man ceases to be your neighbor in this instance. He's not living according to his proper design. You could say he's an imporperly functioning moral agent. Proper function comes into play here just as much as epistemology, I'm led to believe.

I will have to think about all that. Thank you for your response.